Campaigners against a housing estate planned for Walthamstow Stadium have abandoned hope of launching a judicial review.

Chair of local residents’ association Gail Penfold has said the group will not qualify for legal aid and cannot afford to raise the £50,000-£100,000 needed to take their case against London & Quadrant’s (L&Q) 294-home development proposed for the site in Chingford Road, Walthamstow, to the High Court.

She said: “I’m gutted, just gutted. I honestly believe that if we had the money we would have won.

“The fact that it comes down to money is the harsh reality. That central government and our council failed to listen to the concerns of residents who didn’t want the L&Q build is just tragic.

“To lose such an iconic part of our national heritage is very sad.

“We would like to thank Saunders Solicitors, Alun Jones QC, and Shaun Wallace for their commitment, hard work and time spent trying to assist us all of which was given free of charge.”

She added that the association would welcome the people who eventually live at the estate.

The proposals were controversially approved by Mayor of London Boris Johnson in October last year after Waltham Forest Council passed them in May.

Related links

Campaigners have opposed the plans for years for what they claimed was overdevelopment as well as a lack of social housing provision.

Others have fought for a return to dog racing at the site and the judicial review was set to investigate the decision-making process behind the approval of L&Q’s plans.

Mrs Penfold claimed legal advisors told her the mayor’s and council’s decisions were fraught with faults, but the group has been unable to secure legal aid to progress their case.

Building work is now widely expected to begin after the firm told the Guardian last week that the threat of a judicial review was delaying construction.

The news marks the end of the long fought battle over the future of the landmark site which for so many years was one of the UK’s most popular greyhound racing tracks at which David Beckham worked in his youth as a bottle collector.

The saga has been the centre of controversy, including the revelation that L&Q bought the stadium for £18 million in 2008 despite it now being worth just £7 million.

Campaigners claim taxpayers would be forced to fund the shortfall but L&Q said it did not consider the investment a loss because it anticipated making a long-term profit.

MPs Iain Duncan Smith and Stella Creasy backed the campaigners’ fight but their support was not enough to stop Waltham Forest Council narrowly passing the plans by four votes to three in May 2012.

Boris Johnson then decided not to intervene after claiming the stadium was an “acceptable loss” due to benefits including a £1.75 million investment in Waltham Forest Pool and Track the development would bring.

Campaigners then pinned their hopes on the possibility that Secretary of State for Communities Eric Pickles would decide to intervene, but the council controversially rubberstamped the final paperwork within two days of the mayor’s decision.

This effectively denied Pickles a 21-day window to decide whether to call the matter in, sparking the government’s ire enough to call the local authority “unreasonable”.

L&Q must preserve the iconic frontage and historic tote in their development.

A spokesman for the company said: “We look forward to beginning work as soon as we can, subject to meeting the remaining conditions in the planning process.

“We will build 294 much needed, high quality homes for people on a range of incomes. Our scheme will bring £50 million worth of investment into the borough, including £3.8 million to improve local leisure, education, health and transport facilities.

"This will preserve the architectural heritage of this iconic and historic site for the whole community. Our plans will also create up to 250 jobs, including many apprenticeships and training opportunities for local people.”

Comments (33)

It becomes painful when you have to spend your own money. Easy when you want the Council to CPO things like the Granada.

This was doomed from day one.

Despite all the blustering about viability and so on, the Death Knell rang because nobody went anymore and suddenly woke up to the consequences of closure after it failed.

With increased immigration from Europe expected next year, with constraints on Bulgaria and Romania being raised, affordable housing is needed rather than dogs chasing toy hares around a valuable building plot.

£50,000-£100,000
It becomes painful when you have to spend your own money. Easy when you want the Council to CPO things like the Granada.
This was doomed from day one.
Despite all the blustering about viability and so on, the Death Knell rang because nobody went anymore and suddenly woke up to the consequences of closure after it failed.
With increased immigration from Europe expected next year, with constraints on Bulgaria and Romania being raised, affordable housing is needed rather than dogs chasing toy hares around a valuable building plot.Cornbeefur

Forget the dog racing. You just don't get the point. Money has overwhelmed the wishes of the local residents.
From the Residents Association website:

Walthamstow Stadium Area Residents/Community Association are devastated that we are unable to proceed with Judicial Review.

The professional advice received included "It is true that the Mayor’s consideration is poorly reasoned." and went on to say "There are procedural faults in the Council’s processes which are unattractive."

Chair Gail Penfold said that due to the complexity of the case, the costs involved are prohibitive. We have been unable to secure Community Funding and just dont have the £50k to £100k that such action would cost.

We thank Saunders Solicitors, Alun Jones QC, and Shaun Wallace for their commitment, hard work and time spent trying to assist us all of which was given free of charge.

Once the build has been completed we will welcome the new residents into our community and they automatically become members of our association.

With funding the Chair truly believes we could have been successful at the High Court.

L&Qs original selling point related to the long housing waiting lists in LBWF. It is a shame that once completed the development wont even put a dent in the ever increasing numbers of homeless people in our Borough.

Forget the dog racing. You just don't get the point. Money has overwhelmed the wishes of the local residents.
From the Residents Association website:
Walthamstow Stadium Area Residents/Community Association are devastated that we are unable to proceed with Judicial Review.
The professional advice received included "It is true that the Mayor’s consideration is poorly reasoned." and went on to say "There are procedural faults in the Council’s processes which are unattractive."
Chair Gail Penfold said that due to the complexity of the case, the costs involved are prohibitive. We have been unable to secure Community Funding and just dont have the £50k to £100k that such action would cost.
We thank Saunders Solicitors, Alun Jones QC, and Shaun Wallace for their commitment, hard work and time spent trying to assist us all of which was given free of charge.
Once the build has been completed we will welcome the new residents into our community and they automatically become members of our association.
With funding the Chair truly believes we could have been successful at the High Court.
L&Qs original selling point related to the long housing waiting lists in LBWF. It is a shame that once completed the development wont even put a dent in the ever increasing numbers of homeless people in our Borough.Keith Hicken

What a surprise to see Conbleeder pouring cold water on local residents campaigning for local issues and of course he gloats just to rub it in now the end has come. Oh and I see also the troll has managed to bring in a reference to the EMD cinema. Only surprised he didn't mention people dressed as 'Darleks' (sic)

What a surprise to see Conbleeder pouring cold water on local residents campaigning for local issues and of course he gloats just to rub it in now the end has come. Oh and I see also the troll has managed to bring in a reference to the EMD cinema. Only surprised he didn't mention people dressed as 'Darleks' (sic)Jeremy_Griffiths

@cornbeefur Unfortunately the dense housing going on the stadium site will not reduce the housing waiting lists because hardly any of it is social/affordable housing.

Local residents would have been more supportive had it been assisting the homeless in our borough as opposed to what appears to be a commercial development under the auspices of a social housing provider

@cornbeefur Unfortunately the dense housing going on the stadium site will not reduce the housing waiting lists because hardly any of it is social/affordable housing.
Local residents would have been more supportive had it been assisting the homeless in our borough as opposed to what appears to be a commercial development under the auspices of a social housing providerStow Residents/Community Association

We would disagree with L&Qs claims and/or insinuations that judicial review was holding up their work.

With the many conditions imposed by the planning permission work on these could have commenced a long time ago regardless of any action being taken.

We would disagree with L&Qs claims and/or insinuations that judicial review was holding up their work.
With the many conditions imposed by the planning permission work on these could have commenced a long time ago regardless of any action being taken.Stow Residents/Community Association

Jeremy_Griffiths wrote:
What a surprise to see Conbleeder pouring cold water on local residents campaigning for local issues and of course he gloats just to rub it in now the end has come. Oh and I see also the troll has managed to bring in a reference to the EMD cinema. Only surprised he didn't mention people dressed as 'Darleks' (sic)

What have Darleks got to do with the dog track?

Dogs chased toy hares not Darleks?

The campaign did not have any legsm neither does the Granada, all of which will be revealed soon by Bristol. At least the Arcade will have a Top Spec warm and dry Multi Cinema Plex soon where people can watch a wide range of films instead of carrys on up the Khybers Paths and Planet Zob or Bust.

It does make me smile that out of so called 'thousands of campaigners' to keep the Stow they could not raise 50-100k between them.

Legal aid for such folly has long gone and one must dig deep to pursue folly in these days of austerity.

House prices should not be affected around the Housing Estate and I suggest NIMBYS welcome the new residents with open arms.

[quote][p][bold]Jeremy_Griffiths[/bold] wrote:
What a surprise to see Conbleeder pouring cold water on local residents campaigning for local issues and of course he gloats just to rub it in now the end has come. Oh and I see also the troll has managed to bring in a reference to the EMD cinema. Only surprised he didn't mention people dressed as 'Darleks' (sic)[/p][/quote]What have Darleks got to do with the dog track?
Dogs chased toy hares not Darleks?
The campaign did not have any legsm neither does the Granada, all of which will be revealed soon by Bristol. At least the Arcade will have a Top Spec warm and dry Multi Cinema Plex soon where people can watch a wide range of films instead of carrys on up the Khybers Paths and Planet Zob or Bust.
It does make me smile that out of so called 'thousands of campaigners' to keep the Stow they could not raise 50-100k between them.
Legal aid for such folly has long gone and one must dig deep to pursue folly in these days of austerity.
House prices should not be affected around the Housing Estate and I suggest NIMBYS welcome the new residents with open arms.Cornbeefur

I seem to recall IDA calling a public meeting outside the stadium (during the period when demonstrations had been banned on the urging of Chris Robbins and Stella Creasy) in order to make a 'special announcement'.

I wonder if he would be willing to repeat what he told the crowd using the graphic imagery of graves and pledging bravely to fight on residents' behalf? There was also some grand phrase about 'It's not finished, not until the first brick goes up." I presume that means we will be able to look forward to the sight of him lying in front of dumper trucks in the coming weeks. or maybe not.

Maybe he and Stella Creasy will now also publish the record of the conversation they had with Eric Pickles? I have always felt is strange how muted they have been on this issue ever since that confidential conflab.

I seem to recall IDA calling a public meeting outside the stadium (during the period when demonstrations had been banned on the urging of Chris Robbins and Stella Creasy) in order to make a 'special announcement'.
I wonder if he would be willing to repeat what he told the crowd using the graphic imagery of graves and pledging bravely to fight on residents' behalf? There was also some grand phrase about 'It's not finished, not until the first brick goes up." I presume that means we will be able to look forward to the sight of him lying in front of dumper trucks in the coming weeks. or maybe not.
Maybe he and Stella Creasy will now also publish the record of the conversation they had with Eric Pickles? I have always felt is strange how muted they have been on this issue ever since that confidential conflab.Techno3

Techno3 wrote:
I seem to recall IDA calling a public meeting outside the stadium (during the period when demonstrations had been banned on the urging of Chris Robbins and Stella Creasy) in order to make a 'special announcement'.

I wonder if he would be willing to repeat what he told the crowd using the graphic imagery of graves and pledging bravely to fight on residents' behalf? There was also some grand phrase about 'It's not finished, not until the first brick goes up.&quot; I presume that means we will be able to look forward to the sight of him lying in front of dumper trucks in the coming weeks. or maybe not.

Maybe he and Stella Creasy will now also publish the record of the conversation they had with Eric Pickles? I have always felt is strange how muted they have been on this issue ever since that confidential conflab.

Sorry, that should say IDS

[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote:
I seem to recall IDA calling a public meeting outside the stadium (during the period when demonstrations had been banned on the urging of Chris Robbins and Stella Creasy) in order to make a 'special announcement'.
I wonder if he would be willing to repeat what he told the crowd using the graphic imagery of graves and pledging bravely to fight on residents' behalf? There was also some grand phrase about 'It's not finished, not until the first brick goes up." I presume that means we will be able to look forward to the sight of him lying in front of dumper trucks in the coming weeks. or maybe not.
Maybe he and Stella Creasy will now also publish the record of the conversation they had with Eric Pickles? I have always felt is strange how muted they have been on this issue ever since that confidential conflab.[/p][/quote]Sorry, that should say IDSTechno3

Well thats it I suppose, did not think there was much hope. My Dad loved `the dogs` we would go with the family for special occasions. What with the new bus depot coming, the roundabout, Sainsbury`s, the no parking / parking schemes, the area will be far less than desireable. The sad thing about it, the `iconic` facade will remain, ( a `blot on the landscape` in my opinion, ) with perhaps a climbing / skateboard feature added. Sorry but there it is.

Well thats it I suppose, did not think there was much hope. My Dad loved `the dogs` we would go with the family for special occasions. What with the new bus depot coming, the roundabout, Sainsbury`s, the no parking / parking schemes, the area will be far less than desireable. The sad thing about it, the `iconic` facade will remain, ( a `blot on the landscape` in my opinion, ) with perhaps a climbing / skateboard feature added. Sorry but there it is.chingford lad

whoever voted for this council should hang their heads in shame - they are a total disgrace .Cllr Pye, Robbins & loakes killed off the stow

250 jobs - liars -only 20 are perminent
Who from the community would want to walk around a housing estate !!
There is NO social rent . They will never build until the front rots and has to be pulled down
50 million investment that has cost the tax payer 80 million - well done L&Q and the council.
FACT -18.1 million paid - land value today 7.5million - and the tax payer paid the bill
whoever voted for this council should hang their heads in shame - they are a total disgrace .Cllr Pye, Robbins & loakes killed off the stowwaltham

What happened to that Bob Morton guy? He's a multi millionaire and wanted to buy it. He can afford £50-100k... Why is he not paying for the review? Must think legal stuff won't work...

It's over guys.

What happened to that Bob Morton guy? He's a multi millionaire and wanted to buy it. He can afford £50-100k... Why is he not paying for the review? Must think legal stuff won't work...
It's over guys.walthamstowboi

walthamstowboi wrote:
What happened to that Bob Morton guy? He's a multi millionaire and wanted to buy it. He can afford £50-100k... Why is he not paying for the review? Must think legal stuff won't work...

It's over guys.

What happen to Bob ?Shows no ones willing to put there hand in there pockets to save it .Well done L&Q get it built

[quote][p][bold]walthamstowboi[/bold] wrote:
What happened to that Bob Morton guy? He's a multi millionaire and wanted to buy it. He can afford £50-100k... Why is he not paying for the review? Must think legal stuff won't work...
It's over guys.[/p][/quote]What happen to Bob ?Shows no ones willing to put there hand in there pockets to save it .Well done L&Q get it builtIan RS2000

I doubted his intentions long ago and has to suffer the venom of the Doubting.

The same will occur when the Granada saga ends soon.

Where was the Baldrick the Jaggar and the 'Comedian' that droned on with curly hair who supported the Cinema? Where has the fragrant Stella gone?

More important, where was their financial input?

Total poppycock.

Lack of support for Iconic venues and Institutions from locals means closure.

Empty vessels make the most noise.

Bob Morton?
Who he?
Did he exist?
Look at this bluster:
http://saveourstow.w
ordpress.com/2011/05
/13/bob-morton-repea
ts-his-offer-to-lq-f
or-stow/
I doubted his intentions long ago and has to suffer the venom of the Doubting.
The same will occur when the Granada saga ends soon.
Where was the Baldrick the Jaggar and the 'Comedian' that droned on with curly hair who supported the Cinema? Where has the fragrant Stella gone?
More important, where was their financial input?
Total poppycock.
Lack of support for Iconic venues and Institutions from locals means closure.
Empty vessels make the most noise.Cornbeefur

After last week's revelations about WF planning committee decisions being fixed, all controversial decisions should be reconsidered.

Allowing L&Q to cram an unwanted housing development onto this site is the most controversial. They have already shown their incompetence by spending £18 million on a site worth £7 million, and presumably hope to claw that back by speculation.

After last week's revelations about WF planning committee decisions being fixed, all controversial decisions should be reconsidered.
Allowing L&Q to cram an unwanted housing development onto this site is the most controversial. They have already shown their incompetence by spending £18 million on a site worth £7 million, and presumably hope to claw that back by speculation.Walthamster

Trevor 2 wrote:
What is evident by this fiasco is that 'Robbing Robbins' and his gang don't give the proverbial monkeys about residents wishes. L &amp; Q obviously could afford bigger brown envelopes!!

Cheap shot without proof

[quote][p][bold]Trevor 2[/bold] wrote:
What is evident by this fiasco is that 'Robbing Robbins' and his gang don't give the proverbial monkeys about residents wishes. L & Q obviously could afford bigger brown envelopes!![/p][/quote]Cheap shot without proofCornbeefur

Trevor 2 wrote:
What is evident by this fiasco is that 'Robbing Robbins' and his gang don't give the proverbial monkeys about residents wishes. L &amp; Q obviously could afford bigger brown envelopes!!

Cheap shot without proof

. . says the King of cheap shots without proof. For example, when you went all judgemental on that poor bloke who (temporarily, thankfully) had his dog stolen. For example, when you accused people of using their wheelie bins to warn cars of bad conditions on their road of breaking the Road Traffic Act. Like you have consistently accuse the Save the Stow campaigners, EMD campaigners and anyone else who bothers to get off their backsides of falsehoods, lies and goodness knows what else. What good have YOU EVER done this Borough? H'mm? Besides aiming nasty cheap shot after nasty cheap shot from the safe anonymity of your computer?

[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Trevor 2[/bold] wrote:
What is evident by this fiasco is that 'Robbing Robbins' and his gang don't give the proverbial monkeys about residents wishes. L & Q obviously could afford bigger brown envelopes!![/p][/quote]Cheap shot without proof[/p][/quote]. . says the King of cheap shots without proof. For example, when you went all judgemental on that poor bloke who (temporarily, thankfully) had his dog stolen. For example, when you accused people of using their wheelie bins to warn cars of bad conditions on their road of breaking the Road Traffic Act. Like you have consistently accuse the Save the Stow campaigners, EMD campaigners and anyone else who bothers to get off their backsides of falsehoods, lies and goodness knows what else. What good have YOU EVER done this Borough? H'mm? Besides aiming nasty cheap shot after nasty cheap shot from the safe anonymity of your computer?Jeremy_Griffiths

Trevor 2 wrote:
What is evident by this fiasco is that 'Robbing Robbins' and his gang don't give the proverbial monkeys about residents wishes. L &amp; Q obviously could afford bigger brown envelopes!!

Cheap shot without proof

. . says the King of cheap shots without proof. For example, when you went all judgemental on that poor bloke who (temporarily, thankfully) had his dog stolen. For example, when you accused people of using their wheelie bins to warn cars of bad conditions on their road of breaking the Road Traffic Act. Like you have consistently accuse the Save the Stow campaigners, EMD campaigners and anyone else who bothers to get off their backsides of falsehoods, lies and goodness knows what else. What good have YOU EVER done this Borough? H'mm? Besides aiming nasty cheap shot after nasty cheap shot from the safe anonymity of your computer?

Hear hear. And I bet his computer/laptop is cranberry coloured!

[quote][p][bold]Jeremy_Griffiths[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Trevor 2[/bold] wrote:
What is evident by this fiasco is that 'Robbing Robbins' and his gang don't give the proverbial monkeys about residents wishes. L & Q obviously could afford bigger brown envelopes!![/p][/quote]Cheap shot without proof[/p][/quote]. . says the King of cheap shots without proof. For example, when you went all judgemental on that poor bloke who (temporarily, thankfully) had his dog stolen. For example, when you accused people of using their wheelie bins to warn cars of bad conditions on their road of breaking the Road Traffic Act. Like you have consistently accuse the Save the Stow campaigners, EMD campaigners and anyone else who bothers to get off their backsides of falsehoods, lies and goodness knows what else. What good have YOU EVER done this Borough? H'mm? Besides aiming nasty cheap shot after nasty cheap shot from the safe anonymity of your computer?[/p][/quote]Hear hear. And I bet his computer/laptop is cranberry coloured!barbus44

The good council of waltham forest strike agian!! Without consideration of the boroughs overstretched schools and health system, and not forgetting traffic in the area! The only blessing would be there is NO social housing on this site, yes I said it, as why not build houses for people that work yes work for a living!!! and want to and can afford to rent without asking for hand-outs putting more added expenses to the local government and us tax payers.

The good council of waltham forest strike agian!! Without consideration of the boroughs overstretched schools and health system, and not forgetting traffic in the area! The only blessing would be there is NO social housing on this site, yes I said it, as why not build houses for people that work yes work for a living!!! and want to and can afford to rent without asking for hand-outs putting more added expenses to the local government and us tax payers.holachingford

holachingford wrote:
The good council of waltham forest strike agian!! Without consideration of the boroughs overstretched schools and health system, and not forgetting traffic in the area! The only blessing would be there is NO social housing on this site, yes I said it, as why not build houses for people that work yes work for a living!!! and want to and can afford to rent without asking for hand-outs putting more added expenses to the local government and us tax payers.

So this is what it was all about? Nimbyism? Where are those who were willing to welcome people 'with open arms?'

Are the arms now folded?

House prices in the area should remain the same and should not be affected so long as the Estate is properly Managed and one sees an occasional police presence unlike the Cathall Estate that has always been a spot of general bother.

[quote][p][bold]holachingford[/bold] wrote:
The good council of waltham forest strike agian!! Without consideration of the boroughs overstretched schools and health system, and not forgetting traffic in the area! The only blessing would be there is NO social housing on this site, yes I said it, as why not build houses for people that work yes work for a living!!! and want to and can afford to rent without asking for hand-outs putting more added expenses to the local government and us tax payers.[/p][/quote]So this is what it was all about? Nimbyism? Where are those who were willing to welcome people 'with open arms?'
Are the arms now folded?
House prices in the area should remain the same and should not be affected so long as the Estate is properly Managed and one sees an occasional police presence unlike the Cathall Estate that has always been a spot of general bother.Cornbeefur

holachingford wrote: The good council of waltham forest strike agian!! Without consideration of the boroughs overstretched schools and health system, and not forgetting traffic in the area! The only blessing would be there is NO social housing on this site, yes I said it, as why not build houses for people that work yes work for a living!!! and want to and can afford to rent without asking for hand-outs putting more added expenses to the local government and us tax payers.

So this is what it was all about? Nimbyism? Where are those who were willing to welcome people 'with open arms?' Are the arms now folded? House prices in the area should remain the same and should not be affected so long as the Estate is properly Managed and one sees an occasional police presence unlike the Cathall Estate that has always been a spot of general bother.

Not in my back yard: a person who objects to the occurrence of something if it will affect him or her or take place in his or her locality !!
No open arm policy for me, I accept there are people that do need help, but there are many that rely and use the system, that I do not agree with, So Waltham Forest can do without another social housing estate, for a change why not help people that work for a living and can pay their rent by providing suitable accommodation. So while you quote Nimbyism, I say to my children it pays to work, an ethic that seems so lost in their generation, probably by do-gooders like yourself with your open arm policy. Lets hope the house prices remain the same, as then what I have worked hard for the last 20 years will be a benefit to me and my hardworking family!

[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]holachingford[/bold] wrote: The good council of waltham forest strike agian!! Without consideration of the boroughs overstretched schools and health system, and not forgetting traffic in the area! The only blessing would be there is NO social housing on this site, yes I said it, as why not build houses for people that work yes work for a living!!! and want to and can afford to rent without asking for hand-outs putting more added expenses to the local government and us tax payers.[/p][/quote]So this is what it was all about? Nimbyism? Where are those who were willing to welcome people 'with open arms?' Are the arms now folded? House prices in the area should remain the same and should not be affected so long as the Estate is properly Managed and one sees an occasional police presence unlike the Cathall Estate that has always been a spot of general bother.[/p][/quote]Not in my back yard: a person who objects to the occurrence of something if it will affect him or her or take place in his or her locality !!
No open arm policy for me, I accept there are people that do need help, but there are many that rely and use the system, that I do not agree with, So Waltham Forest can do without another social housing estate, for a change why not help people that work for a living and can pay their rent by providing suitable accommodation. So while you quote Nimbyism, I say to my children it pays to work, an ethic that seems so lost in their generation, probably by do-gooders like yourself with your open arm policy. Lets hope the house prices remain the same, as then what I have worked hard for the last 20 years will be a benefit to me and my hardworking family!holachingford

holachingford wrote:
The good council of waltham forest strike agian!! Without consideration of the boroughs overstretched schools and health system, and not forgetting traffic in the area! The only blessing would be there is NO social housing on this site, yes I said it, as why not build houses for people that work yes work for a living!!! and want to and can afford to rent without asking for hand-outs putting more added expenses to the local government and us tax payers.

Exactly. Social Housing seems to be the 'buzz word' these days.

One minute a planning application gets turned down the next, people like L&Q tell the council "But we'll be building social housing". Council: "Oh thats good. Build as high & wide as you like then!"

Whilst SOS was a good cause, you can't fight against people like L&Q with the £m's behind them and their probable payments to the council to help get the scheme through.

I hope everyones prepared for the utter chaos theres going to be near the Billet Roundabout in future years what with this & the proposed building works on the old car park!!!!

[quote][p][bold]holachingford[/bold] wrote:
The good council of waltham forest strike agian!! Without consideration of the boroughs overstretched schools and health system, and not forgetting traffic in the area! The only blessing would be there is NO social housing on this site, yes I said it, as why not build houses for people that work yes work for a living!!! and want to and can afford to rent without asking for hand-outs putting more added expenses to the local government and us tax payers.[/p][/quote]Exactly. Social Housing seems to be the 'buzz word' these days.
One minute a planning application gets turned down the next, people like L&Q tell the council "But we'll be building social housing". Council: "Oh thats good. Build as high & wide as you like then!"
Whilst SOS was a good cause, you can't fight against people like L&Q with the £m's behind them and their probable payments to the council to help get the scheme through.
I hope everyones prepared for the utter chaos theres going to be near the Billet Roundabout in future years what with this & the proposed building works on the old car park!!!!Ferdy54

is there actually any forest left in waltham forest...going to have to change its name...waltham housing estate borough would be a good one with 900 plus being built too.such a shame used to be a great looking area when i was a kid.....

is there actually any forest left in waltham forest...going to have to change its name...waltham housing estate borough would be a good one with 900 plus being built too.such a shame used to be a great looking area when i was a kid.....ruby newbie

ruby newbie wrote:
is there actually any forest left in waltham forest...going to have to change its name...waltham housing estate borough would be a good one with 900 plus being built too.such a shame used to be a great looking area when i was a kid.....

There are at least 400 acres of Forest left. What are you on about?

Nothing has been built on Forest Land for many years and the Corporation of London and Wanstead Society Protect it under a Charter I think from Queen Elizabeth who built her hunting Lodge there, which is now a cafe and museum?

Like the Vestry House, there are many interesting artifacts therein including a pair of ancient Cranberry Tinted Spectacles, which I think were worn by Dick Turpins during the upheavals, of which, there were many.

[quote][p][bold]ruby newbie[/bold] wrote:
is there actually any forest left in waltham forest...going to have to change its name...waltham housing estate borough would be a good one with 900 plus being built too.such a shame used to be a great looking area when i was a kid.....[/p][/quote]There are at least 400 acres of Forest left. What are you on about?
Nothing has been built on Forest Land for many years and the Corporation of London and Wanstead Society Protect it under a Charter I think from Queen Elizabeth who built her hunting Lodge there, which is now a cafe and museum?
Like the Vestry House, there are many interesting artifacts therein including a pair of ancient Cranberry Tinted Spectacles, which I think were worn by Dick Turpins during the upheavals, of which, there were many.Cornbeefur

Its laughable how some accuse others of Nimbyism as though its is some sort of affliction or disease. Stones and glass houses spring to mind. Compared to what could have been achieved...The Stow redevelopment is a monstrosity and as the volunteer campaigners of SOS and Stow Residents reflect on the reality they have gained a lot of respect amongst the community. Unlike those with their vacuous sniping designed to invite irrational and emotional responses purely to say "see i was right". Sad or what!!! but a different sadness to what the campaigners feel. Certain WF councillors have disrespected those that voted for them and the supposed democratic planning process has been given short shrift to rubber stamp a pre determined decision. The Chandlers sold out on a community their business interests had built up. L and Q trashed it. We now have the vision of an eight story block of flats surrounded by five story blocks of flats in an area full of two story victorian terraced houses. How does that respect the built environment? The local population will increase by a minimum of 800 where there is currently none. Thousands visited the area boosting local and nightime economy. Where are the forty full time and 400 part time jobs gone??. Not to be replaced by L and Q. Anyone left out there still believe this development will help local housing needs? It is likely to increase local population. S106 payments to the council and increased council taxation..which is what this is all about are dependant upon it getting built. That will take years...it will be demolished and left until L and Q decide the time is right with an amended plannning application.

Its laughable how some accuse others of Nimbyism as though its is some sort of affliction or disease. Stones and glass houses spring to mind. Compared to what could have been achieved...The Stow redevelopment is a monstrosity and as the volunteer campaigners of SOS and Stow Residents reflect on the reality they have gained a lot of respect amongst the community. Unlike those with their vacuous sniping designed to invite irrational and emotional responses purely to say "see i was right". Sad or what!!! but a different sadness to what the campaigners feel. Certain WF councillors have disrespected those that voted for them and the supposed democratic planning process has been given short shrift to rubber stamp a pre determined decision. The Chandlers sold out on a community their business interests had built up. L and Q trashed it. We now have the vision of an eight story block of flats surrounded by five story blocks of flats in an area full of two story victorian terraced houses. How does that respect the built environment? The local population will increase by a minimum of 800 where there is currently none. Thousands visited the area boosting local and nightime economy. Where are the forty full time and 400 part time jobs gone??. Not to be replaced by L and Q. Anyone left out there still believe this development will help local housing needs? It is likely to increase local population. S106 payments to the council and increased council taxation..which is what this is all about are dependant upon it getting built. That will take years...it will be demolished and left until L and Q decide the time is right with an amended plannning application.bishbosh

dearest wonderful cornbeefer,for someone who reads journalisum alot i am sure you are familiar with the word "satire" or maybe "sarcasm".or maybe you have a modern day condition called "when will i be famous"

dearest wonderful cornbeefer,for someone who reads journalisum alot i am sure you are familiar with the word "satire" or maybe "sarcasm".or maybe you have a modern day condition called "when will i be famous"ruby newbie

ruby newbie wrote:
is there actually any forest left in waltham forest...going to have to change its name...waltham housing estate borough would be a good one with 900 plus being built too.such a shame used to be a great looking area when i was a kid.....

So true, Ruby. Some councils have a policy of NOT allowing change of use where a community asset is going to be lost.

Waltham Housing Estate Council seems to have the opposite policy: "If it's something local people love, and gives the area a special character -- can't have that! Get rid of it. More flats for our landlords to rent out, that's what we want!"

[quote][p][bold]ruby newbie[/bold] wrote:
is there actually any forest left in waltham forest...going to have to change its name...waltham housing estate borough would be a good one with 900 plus being built too.such a shame used to be a great looking area when i was a kid.....[/p][/quote]So true, Ruby. Some councils have a policy of NOT allowing change of use where a community asset is going to be lost.
Waltham Housing Estate Council seems to have the opposite policy: "If it's something local people love, and gives the area a special character -- can't have that! Get rid of it. More flats for our landlords to rent out, that's what we want!"Walthamster

mike johnson Director of L&Q " we were encouraged to buy the site by the council make of it what you will"

FACT =Robbins & co set out to destroy the stow

FACT L&Q given green light ... fingers in the pye ??????

For info : L&Q were offered over 16m but would not even hold a meeting

you dont have a chance when certain people are corrupt.so why should anybody waste any more money - lets see L&Q build NOW or wait about 10 years till listed buildings ROT

PROOF
mike johnson Director of L&Q " we were encouraged to buy the site by the council make of it what you will"
FACT =Robbins & co set out to destroy the stow
FACT L&Q given green light ... fingers in the pye ??????
For info : L&Q were offered over 16m but would not even hold a meeting
you dont have a chance when certain people are corrupt.so why should anybody waste any more money - lets see L&Q build NOW or wait about 10 years till listed buildings ROTwaltham

1400 votes in a local election is likely to get you elected...and look at what can happen. It is a real shame the lead of housing and the band of nodding dogs cannot see past their own political ambition as limited as it is. It takes courage, imagination and talent to do the right thing. I believe certain councillors having made certain overtures, promises, discussions call them what you like lost their bottle with the Stow. How can the elected members on a mandate to deal with local housing problems be complicite in trashing a viable business, hundreds of local jobs and one of the few things Walthamstow was famous for and not deliver anything to help with local housing needs. It is now common knowledge they have renaged on that mandate so why else do it?. To raise income for a cash strapped authority. I have a tenuous acceptance of this however any s106 payment is subject to the development being built..when will that be?. Any increase in council taxation and government new build bonus (if not taken away soon) will not be available until residents are in occupation..when will that be? Are our elected members with influence as dumb as they seem?. So we have lost a national iconic stadium attracting thousands to the borough each year, employing hundreds, engaging with local business ensuring work for security, catering, transport, maintenance and so on apart from those in the greyhound industry. Not one of the local residents want what has been agreed despite excellent arguments to the contrary on many fronts. What for?... delivery of a promise made by elected members..playing a power game way beyond their capabilities. Well done whoever you are...

1400 votes in a local election is likely to get you elected...and look at what can happen. It is a real shame the lead of housing and the band of nodding dogs cannot see past their own political ambition as limited as it is. It takes courage, imagination and talent to do the right thing. I believe certain councillors having made certain overtures, promises, discussions call them what you like lost their bottle with the Stow. How can the elected members on a mandate to deal with local housing problems be complicite in trashing a viable business, hundreds of local jobs and one of the few things Walthamstow was famous for and not deliver anything to help with local housing needs. It is now common knowledge they have renaged on that mandate so why else do it?. To raise income for a cash strapped authority. I have a tenuous acceptance of this however any s106 payment is subject to the development being built..when will that be?. Any increase in council taxation and government new build bonus (if not taken away soon) will not be available until residents are in occupation..when will that be? Are our elected members with influence as dumb as they seem?. So we have lost a national iconic stadium attracting thousands to the borough each year, employing hundreds, engaging with local business ensuring work for security, catering, transport, maintenance and so on apart from those in the greyhound industry. Not one of the local residents want what has been agreed despite excellent arguments to the contrary on many fronts. What for?... delivery of a promise made by elected members..playing a power game way beyond their capabilities. Well done whoever you are...bishbosh